What exactly IS the point of a two-month extension of the Payroll tax cut? (employment, gallon)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
$2,000????? What? Are you saying that we will all see $250/week more in our paychecks???? LMAO... Where in the world did you get those numbers? From Obama's calculator?
From what I've heard, the Senate wanted a one year extension. The House would only buy off on it if the pipeline and other big issues were "attached" to the one year extension. That was rejected. They would only agree to a 2 month extension if they couldn't get their pipeline. That has been proposed but then shot down by the GOP.
It's 2 months..average is $13 per week.
$13 * 8 is $104.
People who earn $50,000 per year don't need an extra $13 a week.
And Democrats are idiots by trying to exclaim that the extra $5 per week that someone earning $20,000 a year -- is really helping anyone.
Steal from Social Security to give the "Real Average American" the opportunity to buy an extra gallon of milk every week is the Democrat's idea of helping the middle class.
This is what American's should be pleased about?
Tax cuts on businesses and deregulation would give people jobs.
Apparently Mr. Hoyer has already forgotten that the Republicans he's shouting at, already HAVE passed an extension of the payroll tax cut. A longer one, even, than the penny-ante one the Democrats passed in the Senate.
Or perhaps he's trying hard not to remember?
Doublethink is a wonderful thing. Now, suddenly, it's all the Republicans' fault, somehow.
GOP Adjourns House as Dems Move to Call Up Senate Tax Cut Bill
Published December 21, 2011
WASHINGTON – House Democrats were fuming Wednesday after Republicans adjourned the chamber just as Democrats were trying to bring up the Senate-passed payroll tax cut bill, a two-month extension that Republicans effectively rejected in a vote the day before.
House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer was cut off as he tried to call up the Senate bill for a vote. In an unusual scene, the presiding Republican in the chamber adjourned the chamber until Friday and walked out while Hoyer continued shouting on the floor for the House to vote "to extend the tax cut for 160 million Americans."
"You're walking out," Hoyer said as officials left the chamber. "You're walking away. Just as so many Republicans have walked away from middle-class taxpayers."
...
Many House Republicans never wanted the president’s tax-cut proposal to pass, in part because it might contribute to economic growth in an election year. But they could not be seen as voting against it, so they used one of Congress’s many methods to kill a bill without appearing to have done so. Earlier in the month, they passed a one-year extension full of provisions designed to sink it, including big cuts to discretionary spending, a significant reduction to jobless benefits and utterly irrelevant provisions allowing industries to spew more pollution and forcing a decision on the Keystone XL oil pipeline.
They wanted the Senate to vote down that bill so the House wouldn’t be blamed. Instead, the Senate approved a two-month extension, hoping to use that time to reach agreement on how to pay for the next 10 months. The blame has returned to the House side.
...
Quote:
Republicans, many of whom said just a few weeks ago that they did not want an extension of the tax cut at all, have now pivoted in the opposite direction, saying they would accept a one-year deal or nothing at all, citing the uncertainty of a stopgap plan.
...
And more Republican senators who voted for the Senate bill urged Mr. Boehner to get his lawmakers to do the same, saying the ugly fight was damaging both Republicans and the already badly battered Congress.
“It is harming the Republican Party,” Senator John McCain of Arizona said in an interview on CNN. “It is harming the view, if it’s possible anymore, of the American people about Congress. And we’ve got to get this thing resolved and with the realization that the payroll tax cut must remain in effect.” link
The crux of the matter is outlined in the NY Daily News:
Quote:
What are both sides’ arguments?
House Republicans want to extend the payroll tax cut for all of 2012 — not just two months. But they want to slash other spending to help pay for the tax break, and Democrats are drawing a line in the sand.
Democrats would also like a full-year extension, but agreed to the two-month deal as a way of winning support from Senate Republicans. The idea was that it would buy more time to figure out how to pay for a longer extension while preventing a tax hike on working Americans.
You know, when they enacted this a year ago, I was very surprised. Tax cuts are nice, but this one comes from the income stream to an already very-strainted Social Security system.
Nonetheless, I quickly upped my 401(K) contribution rate by 2%. So yea, it has helped me. But at what cost?
Depending on who is in charge, Entitlements are either in the red or very important. Well, they're both.
Boehner has been pointing out that it provides nothing that companies, individuals etc. can plan on. It merely "kicks the can down the road" for a brief time, and the whole fight has to begin again almost immediately.
He has a point.
Anybody?
Anybody, Republican or Democrat, with a brain sees that it is purely an attempt to make it appear that the Republicans are against letting us get that tiny bit of money two months and then argue and argue about doing it again. The Republicans aren't about to back down off the 12 months and the Dems,in order to make it appear that the Reps don't want us to get that tiny bit of money are to blame. It is purely political and both parties are guilty of trying to use it to fool the sheep.
Harry Reid thought it would give Obama another two months to kick the can down the road in order to "decide" about the proposed Keystone pipeline.
It is all politics. Obama is immitating Harry Truman's 1948 re-election campaign aginst a "do nothing" Congress. For this platform to remain plausible he must have Reid block everything.
Had I been 18 at the time I would have voted for Truman then because I just couldn't stand his opponent. I was still on hold for voting, however.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.